Who is Eligible for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)?

Authored by Amit Vinayak, Canadian Immigration Lawyer, Amit Vinayak Law Office.

The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) is a process in Canada designed to ensure individuals are not removed to a country where they would face a risk of persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. This assessment is a critical component of Canada’s refugee protection system, aiming to uphold the principle of non-refoulement (the practice of not forcing refugees or people in need of protection to return to a country where they face persecution or torture). Figurado v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FC .

Who is Eligible for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)?

Generally, individuals facing removal from Canada may be eligible to apply for a PRRA. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) must first notify an individual that they may apply by providing a Notification Regarding a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.

Eligibility often depends on the individual’s prior immigration history in Canada. In most cases, a 12-month waiting period applies after certain negative decisions before an individual can apply for a PRRA. This waiting period applies if:

• A negative decision was received from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
• A negative decision was received from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) on a previous PRRA application.
• A refugee claim or PRRA application was abandoned or withdrawn.
• The Federal Court refused an attempt to review a refugee claim or PRRA decision.

However, some individuals may be eligible without a prior refugee claim or after the 12-month waiting period has passed. PRRA candidates can fall into several categories:

• People whose refugee claim has been rejected (including withdrawn or abandoned claims), and more than 12 months have passed.
• People, whose refugee claim is ineligible for referral to the IRB, except those ineligible due to the Safe Third Country Agreement.
• Previous PRRA applicants who are still in Canada, and more than 12 months have passed.
• Other individuals who never previously sought refugee protection in Canada and are now facing removal.

It is important to note that a PRRA application must be submitted to IRCC within 15 days of receiving the PRRA notification to ensure a regulatory stay of removal. If the application is not submitted within this timeframe, the stay ends, and the removal order becomes enforceable.

Factors Considered in a PRRA

PRRA decision-makers assess whether an applicant would be at risk of persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if removed to their country of origin. The assessment involves identifying legal requirements under sections 96, 97, 98, 112(3), and 113 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) .

Key considerations include:

• Risk Assessment: The decision-maker must determine the facts material to the risk assessment and apply a balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. The burden of proof rests with the applicant.

• Evidence: All relevant evidence, including the applicant’s submissions and recent documentary evidence (such as from IRB National Documentation Packages), must be considered.

• Credibility: The credibility of the evidence is assessed. If there are concerns about credibility, the applicant must be informed and given an opportunity to respond. An oral hearing may be held if there is a serious credibility issue related to central evidence that, if accepted, would justify allowing the application (Balogh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 447 (CanLII), [23]-[24]; Merenyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1995 (CanLII), [9]).

• Probative Value and Weight: The capacity of the evidence to establish the fact it is used to prove (probative value) and its overall weight (a function of credibility and probative value) are determined..

• New Evidence: If an applicant has had a refugee claim or a previous PRRA application rejected, they may only provide new evidence that arose after the most recent rejection, or that they could not reasonably have been expected to present previously. This new evidence must be materially different from what was previously considered (Rab v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 383 (CanLII), [18]).

For example, in Ferguson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court upheld a PRRA officer’s decision to dismiss an application where the only evidence of the applicant’s sexual orientation (which was central to her risk claim) was a statement from her counsel, without supporting corroboration. The court found this was an assessment of insufficient probative value, not a credibility finding requiring an oral hearing (Ferguson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1067 (CanLII), [28], [33]).

Conversely, in Balogh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court remitted a PRRA decision for reconsideration because the officer made veiled adverse credibility findings without holding an oral hearing, despite the existence of credibility concerns that triggered the need for one under section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Balogh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [43]).

Similarly, in Merenyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court set aside a PRRA refusal because the officer made adverse credibility findings regarding a central piece of evidence (a screenshot of an arrest warrant) without holding a hearing, which was deemed a reviewable error (Merenyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [31]-[33]).

Who is Ineligible or Has Restricted Access to PRRA?

Certain individuals have restricted access to protection or may be ineligible for a PRRA. This includes those who:

• Have been determined inadmissible for serious criminality (conviction in Canada punishable by 10+ years in prison with a sentence of two or more years, or a conviction outside Canada that would be punishable by 10+ years)
• Have been determined inadmissible on grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or organized.

• Made a refugee claim that was rejected on the basis of section F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention (. This refers to individuals for whom there are serious reasons to believe they have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

• Are named in a certificate referred to in subsection 77(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

For these individuals, the assessment of their application may be limited. For instance, if an applicant is excluded under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention, the PRRA officer’s risk assessment is restricted, Tapambwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 34 (CanLII), [35]). The Supreme Court of Canada in Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) clarified that Article 1F(b) excludes anyone who has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to admission, and post-crime conduct like rehabilitation is not relevant to this exclusion (Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] 3 SCR 431, 2014 SCC 68 (CanLII), [60]).

A PRRA officer does not have the jurisdiction to reconsider a prior exclusion finding under Article 1F or an inadmissibility finding that has been previously determined by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) or Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) and upheld by the Federal Court (Tapambwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [35], [47]-[49]).

Remedies and Options after a PRRA Rejection

If a PRRA application is rejected, the applicant is generally required to leave Canada. However, several options may be available:

• Judicial Review by the Federal Court: An applicant can apply to the Federal Court of Canada for a review of the PRRA. This is a two-stage process involving a “leave stage” where the Court reviews documents to see if the decision was unfair, unreasonable, or contained an error, and a “judicial review stage” which may involve an oral hearing .

• • Stay of Removal: While applying for judicial review, an applicant may also seek a stay of removal from the Federal. The test for granting an interlocutory stay or injunction generally involves demonstrating:
    • A serious issue to be tried (RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 311, 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC); He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 517 (CanLII), [21]).
    • Irreparable harm if the relief is not granted (RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General); He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [26]).
    • The balance of convenience favors granting the stay (RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)).

• • The Federal Court in He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) dismissed a motion for a stay of removal after a negative PRRA, finding that while a serious issue was raised, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm with clear, convincing, and non-speculative evidence (He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [20], [26], [68]). The court noted that the mere existence of a pending judicial review or its potential mootness does not automatically amount to irreparable harm (He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [53], [56]).

• • In Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Federal Court of Appeal granted a stay of a deportation order, finding that the applicant raised serious issues regarding the validity of the order and the Immigration Appeal Board’s equitable jurisdiction, and that deportation would cause irreparable harm to his family and business (Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA)).

• Deferral of Removal: In some circumstances, an enforcement officer may temporarily defer removal if the foreign national provides evidence that events after the PRRA expose them to a risk of serious personal harm if returned (Shpati v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FCA 286 (CanLII), [2012] 2 FCR 133, [52]). However, the potential mootness of PRRA litigation itself does not warrant a deferral of removal (Shpati v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [52]).

• Exceptional Temporary Resident Permit (TRP): Individuals may apply for an Exceptional Temporary Resident Permit under section 24 of the IRPA (Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151 (CanLII), [47]).

• Ministerial Relief: Ministerial relief applications under section 42.1 of the IRPA may also be available (Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [47]).

It is important to understand that if the Federal Court agrees with the original PRRA decision, the applicant will likely have to leave Canada. If the Court returns the case for reconsideration, it does not guarantee a reversal of the original decision. The PRRA process is a complex but vital mechanism within Canadian immigration law, providing a final opportunity for risk assessment before removal. Understanding its eligibility criteria, the factors considered, potential ineligibilities, and available remedies after a rejection is crucial for individuals navigating this process.

References

• Figurado v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FC 1237, https://canlii.ca/t/1lq8s
• Balogh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 447, https://canlii.ca/t/jp3xw
• Ferguson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1067, https://canlii.ca/t/20m1l
• Tapambwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 34, https://canlii.ca/t/hx4m7
• Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68, https://canlii.ca/t/gf0zj
• RJRMacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), https://canlii.ca/t/1frtw
• Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA), https://canlii.ca/t/1fsk2
• Shpati v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FCA 286, https://canlii.ca/t/fm9m6
• Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151, https://canlii.ca/t/jxq1m

Amit Vinayak Charu Vinayak

Barrister & Solicitor Barrister & Solicitor

LSO #82057U LSO# 94474J

Primary Author Co-Author

Disclaimer:

The content provided in this article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should not act upon any information contained herein without first seeking appropriate legal or professional counsel based on their individual circumstances. The author and the publisher disclaim any liability in connection with the use of this information.